SCHOOL OF FREEDOM 104D THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)

Volumes can be written about the French and Indian War also known in American history books as the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763) and the resulting impact that it has had on the subsequent history of North America and even the Western Hemisphere for that matter. For this reason I shall confine my focus to a limited number of aspects of that war including the prewar history of early North America, the major causes of the war, some of the significant battles and events of the war, some of its war heroes and finally on some of the lasting consequences of that war and their effects on our current American history. In this way I hope to provide the reader with a greater appreciation of history and the significant impact that the results of that war have had on the history of our nation.

Brief History of Early Colonial America

The three major European powers of the early 18th century all laid claims upon parts of North America. The Spanish had laid claim to Florida and Mexico which included much of what is now the South Western United States. The British had laid claim upon nearly all of the North American Eastern Seaboard from Georgia in the south to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the north. The French had claimed possession of the St Laurence River Valley, the area of current day Montreal and Quebec as well as all of the land east of the Mississippi to the Appalachian Mountains down to New Orleans on the Gulf Coast. This included the very fur rich country of the Ohio Valley.

Since little was known at the time of the actual expanse of North America, some of the land grants given to the colonies by the British Crown such as Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York had no western boundaries thus extending their land claims well over the Appellation Mountains and into the Ohio Valley. Then in addition to this, numerous Indian tribes, many of whom were under the control of the Iroquois Confederation, also laid claim to much of the lands that lay west of the colonies and extended into all of the Ohio Valley. The predominant language of the British Colonies was English and their religion was heavily Protestant while the people under French Control spoke French and were loyal to the Pope of Rome.

Chief Causes of the War

The French were heavily involved in fur trade with the Indians and the Ohio Valley was a very lucrative area for that trade. The British as well were interested in the fur trade business. The British Hudson Bay Company was founded in 1670 and the Ohio Company was later established by colonial leaders in New York. The interests of the British, French and Indian nations all laying claim to some of the same fertile land area was a chief cause of the war. Because of the increasing encroachment of the British colonies continual expansion westward in search of new land, the Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Celoron led a military force of 200 into what is now Pittsburg, PA in June of 1747 where he buried lead plates engraved with French writing laying claim of the Ohio Valley for the French. "When Céloron's expedition arrived at Logstown, the Native Americans in the area informed Céloron that they owned the Ohio Country and that they would trade with the British regardless of what the French told them to do".1

Not only were the British colonists interested in trade with the Indians, but they were also hungry for more land to meet the needs of their growing colonies and the logical place to move was westward. This meant permanent settlements, which the French did not like. It also brought the English language and Protestantism to the area, something that the French people in Montreal and Quebec did not like. This brought discomfort and distrust to both sides.

The presence of the French in the Ohio Valley was of great concern to the leaders of the colonies. In late 1753, Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia sent 21 year old George Washington with a letter telling the French to back away from what was considered Virginia's western boarder. "Washington left with a small party, picking up along the way Jacob Van Braam as an interpreter, Christopher Gist, a company surveyor working in the area, and a few Mingo led by Tanaghrisson. On December 12, Washington and his men reached Fort Le Boeuf."2

"Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre, commander of the French forces invited Washington to dine with him. Over dinner, Washington presented Saint-Pierre with the letter from Dinwiddie that demanded an immediate French withdrawal from the Ohio Country. Saint-Pierre was quite civil in his response, saying, "As to the Summons you send me to retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it."3 "He explained to Washington that France's claim to the region was superior to that of the British, since René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle had explored the Ohio Country nearly a century earlier."4

"Dinwiddie, even before Washington returned, sent a group of 40 men under William Trent to that point, where in the early months of 1754 they began construction of a small stockaded fort".5 "Governor Duquesne sent additional French forces under Claude-Pierre Pecaudy de Contrecoeur to relieve Saint-Pierre during the same period, and Contrecoeur led 500 men south from Fort Venango on April 5, 1754."6 "When these arrived at the forks, Contrecoeur generously allowed Trent's small company to withdraw, after purchasing their construction tools to continue building what became Fort Duquesne".7

"After Washington returned to Williamsburg with his report, Dinwiddie ordered him to lead a larger force to assist Trent in his work. While en route, he learned of Trent's retreat".8 "Since Tanaghrisson had promised him support, he continued toward Fort Duquesne, and met with the Mingo leader. Learning of a French scouting party in the area, Washington took some of his men, and with Tanaghrisson and his party, surprised the French on May 28. Many of the French were slain, among them their commanding officer, Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, whose head was split open by Tanaghrisson. Historian Fred Anderson puts forward the reason for Tanaghrisson's act (which was followed up by one of Tanaghrisson's men informing Contrecoeur that Jumonville had been killed by British musket fire) as one of desperate need to win the support of the British in an effort to regain authority over his people who were more inclined to support the French".9

"Following the battle, Washington pulled back several miles and established Fort Necessity, which the French then attacked on July 3. The engagement led to Washington's surrender; he negotiated a withdrawal under arms. One of Washington's men reported that the French force was accompanied by Shawnee, Delaware, and Mingo--just those Tanaghrisson was seeking to influence."10

Some Significant Battles of the War

These incidents triggered the beginning of the war that lasted seven years. The initial years of the war went badly for British. During this time the famous battle led by the British Major General Edward Braddock in 1775 occurred in which he attempted to capture Fort Duquesne. They were ambushed by the French and the Indians in the Battle of Monongahela in which Braddock was mortally wounded. Washington served under Braddock and that is where he gained his military leadership skills.

One other battle of the war worth mentioning is the fall of Fort William Henry on the Hudson River to the French military leader, Louis-Joseph de Montcalm. That is considered the most notorious massacre in colonial history. Upon the defeat of the British, the French and Indians massacred and captured hundreds of defenseless British soldiers and citizens. Montcalm was overpowered in his attempt to stop the rampage. Many were robbed and taken captive. Shortly thereafter a plague of small pox spread throughout the Ohio Valley, which was devastating to the Indian tribes. It is thought by many that the disease was transmitted from those who were taken captive. As a result of the epidemic, the role of the American Indians diminished in that war.

Under the new British ministry leadership of William Pitt, the tide eventually turned in favor of the British and the war finally ended in 1763 with the surrender of both Montreal and Quebec to the British. The French General Montcalm lost his life in the Battle of Quebec as did the British General James Wolfe. The war in North America officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on February 10, 1763, and war in the European theatre of the Seven Years' War was settled by the Treaty of Hubertusburg on February 15, 1763.

Consequences of the French and Indian War

The agreements reached in the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Hubertusburg dramatically altered the political and economic history of North America. Although Spain was not involved in the war with the colonies, that nation was involved in the war in other parts of the Western Hemisphere and that too had an impact on the current history of our nation.

As a result of the British victory, Spain gave up Florida to the British. France lost nearly all of her land possessions in North America - which were extensive. "The British offered France a choice of either its North American possessions east of the Mississippi or the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, which had been occupied by the British. France chose to cede Canada, and was able to negotiate the retention of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, two small islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fishing rights in the area. The economic value of the Caribbean islands to France was greater than that of Canada because of their rich sugar crops, and they were easier to defend. The British, however, were happy to take New France, as defense was not an issue, and they already had many sources of sugar. Spain, which traded Florida to Britain to regain Cuba, also gained Louisiana, including New Orleans, from France in compensation for its losses. Navigation on the Mississippi was to be open to all nations."11

Both the British and the French suffered financially from the devastating war. Britain was left with tremendous debts which eventually led to the crown taxing the American colonies to help pay for the war debt. This in turn led to the eventual friction and revolt of the colonies against the British Crown. Also as a result of the war the lands west of the British colonies, including Western New York, formerly under French rule eventually fell into the hands of the Americans after the American Revolution rather than remaining under British rule, as did Canada. It was the British colonists who brought with them the Anglo Saxon common law and the Judeo Christian concept of government that our rights come from our creator rather than from the pleasure of the government. Under French rule which was heavily influenced by the papacy, rights were considered being granted by the state rather than being from God.

Included in those Anglo Saxon common law ideas of government were the concepts that property rights were sacred, that free men had the right to elect their leaders, that government authority should be limited and that men have the right of trial by jury by their peers. These concepts were the source of the revolutionary ideas of self-government which brought about the U S Constitution. Without the influence of these Anglo-Saxon and Judeo-Christian ideas, it seems almost impossible that we would have the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave us or the freedoms that we have today. In this regard, one is lead to conclude, as did Benjamin Franklin, that the God of Heaven truly does rule in the affairs of nations to foster and promote His eternal purposes. In the minds of the Founding Fathers the establishment of the Constitution was truly a miracle. As we Americans gain a conviction of that truth, we do all in our power to preserve it as they charged us to.

Footnotes

1 "French and Indian War", Wikipedia.org 27 November 2010 .

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid..

Books referenced in Wikipedia article.

Anderson, Fred (2000). Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0375406425.

Fowler, William M. (2005). Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763. New York: Walker. ISBN 0802714110.

Jennings, Francis (1988). Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America. New York: Norton. ISBN 0393306402.

Ellis, Joseph J. (2004). His Excellency George Washington. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 1400032539.

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)

NYS NOW HAS A CONSTITUTION LOBBY 8 of 8

PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY HUMAN RIGHTS

PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY
By Nigel Ashford
Human rights
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that
amongst these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson
What are human rights?
Human rights are rights that belong to every human being. A right is
something someone ought to have, that is a moral entitlement, and is
much more than a want or desire. Human rights are moral rights,
different from those rights that are recognised by the state, known as
‘positive’ or ‘legal rights’, which may or may not be human rights. One
of the major goals of the human rights movement is to turn human
rights into legally recognised rights. ‘Human’ means that these rights
belong to all human beings, regardless of nationality, religion, gender,
ethnic group, or sexual orientation. This means not only that they apply
to every person throughout the world, but that they belonged to every
human being that has ever existed and will exist.
Widely recognised as human rights are the right of life (not be killed,
tortured or crippled), freedom of expression, freedom to own justly
acquired property, freedom of movement, and freedom of religion.
Slavery, torture and arbitrary detention are all denials of human rights.
These are best viewed primarily as limits upon the state, that the state
shall not interfere with the rights of individuals within their territory.
The state’s role is to ensure that these rights are embodied in their laws,
that is become ‘legal rights’. The concept of human rights also creates an
obligation by all not to interfere with the rights of others, the principle
of reciprocity.
Any human right has to meet three criteria. First, it must be universal,
belonging to everyone throughout time. There can be no special rights
attributable to only some. Second, it must be absolute. It cannot be legitimately
limited by calls of public interest or cost. Only when human rights
come into conflict with each other can those rights be limited. For exam-
- 42 -
ple, a terrorist, who kills others and thus denies them their right to life,
may be denied his right to life through capital punishment or his freedom
by time in prison. Third, it is inalienable. It is not possible to surrender
that right; for example, it is not possible to sell yourself into slavery.
Natural rights
An early identification of the existence of these rights came in Antigone
by the Greek playwright Sophocles, in which Antigone buried her dead
brother against the orders of King Creon, and justified her actions on
the grounds that the laws of the Gods were higher than the laws of
Kings. This idea was advocated by the Greek Stoics who believed these
laws were to found in nature and by the use of reason, and echoed by
the Roman orator Cicero. “There is a true law, right reason, in accordance
with nature; it is unalterable law.” Christianity proclaimed God’s
law as superior to that of the secular rulers, notably expressed in the
work of St. Thomas Aquinas. These natural rights could be discovered
either by revelation from God, or through reason, “ the laws of nature
and of nature’s God.”
The English philosopher John Locke had the greatest influence on
modern thinking in this area. He proclaimed as a fundamental law of
nature that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty
or possessions.” These rights to life, liberty and property implied the
duties not to harm the life, liberty and property of others. These rights
and duties existed in nature and were not granted by rulers. Government
was created in order to protect these rights. Any political regime that
failed to carry out that function could be removed and replaced with
one that did, suggesting that the people had a right of rebellion against
tyrannical regimes.
These ideas were highly influential in the Americans’ fight for independence
from Great Britain. The author of the Declaration of Independence,
Thomas Jefferson, explicitly drew from Locke with the claim that men
were born with rights, that they included life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, and their betrayal by King George III justified the rebellion
and independence from England. The French Declaration of the Rights
- 43 -
of Man during the French Revolution asserted that “the purpose of all
political association is the conservation of the natural and inalienable
rights of man; these rights are liberty, property, security and resistance to
oppression.”
From natural rights to human rights
In the twentieth century these ideas became more commonly known as
human rights. There was, and is, an attempt to provide international
mechanisms to recognise these rights and see that they are respected
in every regime. In 1948 such rights were recognised in the UN
Declaration of Human Rights. In 1950 the Council of Europe adopted
a European Convention of Human Rights in which member states could
be taken to a European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg by their
own citizens when they felt that their rights had been abused by their
government. Trying to build on the widespread support for human
rights, some groups have sought to broaden the definition of human
rights beyond its original meaning to include economic, social and
group rights. This has been highly controversial, and served to detract
from the pursuit of natural rights.
Marxist hostility to human rights
Marxists have usually denied the existence of human rights. Karl Marx
dismissed them as “bourgeois rights,” regarding appeals to the rights of
man as another means of protecting and promoting the interests of the
propertied classes. Such rights only perpetuated class differences, he
thought, and gave additional protection to the rich and the bourgeoisie.
Communist regimes refused to accept there was any universal standard
to apply to their regimes. Their denial was based on the claim of ‘no
interference in the domestic affairs of another state’, which they interpreted
as meaning that no one should criticise any communist regime.
The Soviet Union refused to sign the Declaration of Human Rights in
1946. Communists were right to be reluctant to accept the principle of
human rights, because when they did so in the Helsinki Declaration in
1975 it was effectively used against them by human rights activists such
as Orlov.
- 44 -
The right to life
Every human being has a right to live. This means, above all, that one
should not be killed either by other people or by the state. Indeed it is
the primary responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from the
foreign invader and the criminal. Some base this right to life on the
concept of self-ownership, that each individual owns his own body and
therefore it should be not be interfered with by others without their permission.
So the right to life extends beyond not being killed to a right
not to be tortured or physically abused. These are recognised in the UN
Declaration in Article 3 that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
the security of person,” and in Article 5 that “No one should be subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Self-ownership also is incompatible with slavery, the ownership
of one person by another (Article 4).
The right to liberty
The right to liberty means that one should be able to live one’s life as
one chooses, subject only to respecting that right in others. The French
Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789 stated: “Political liberty consists
in the power of doing whatever does not injure another. The exercise of
the natural rights of every man has no other limits than those which are
necessary to secure every other man the free exercise of the same rights.”
Because freedom involves doing whatever one wishes subject to that limitation,
it is impossible to enumerate ever right that exists. The UN
Declaration identifies some that it considers particularly important, such
as the free movement of people within and beyond their country (13), the
right to marry and have a family (16), the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion (18), freedom of expression and opinion (19) and
the right of peaceful assembly and association, and non-association (20).
The right to property
The ability to live one’s own life in freedom, to pursue happiness in
one’s own way, requires property. David Boaz explains, “Property is anything
that people can use, control or dispose of. A property right means
- 45 -
the freedom to use, control or dispose of an object or entity.” Without
that right, it would be impossible to live, to occupy land, to produce
goods and services, to trade with others. Socialist attempts to abolish
property has simply meant the transfer of control from the person who
justly acquired it to a government official who decides to whom that
property should be allocated.
Article 17 of the UN Declaration recognises that “Everyone has the
right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of this property.” However it has neglected
any provision for the protection of that right, preferring to allow governments
to arbitrarily allocate property as the rulers see fit. The US Bill of
Rights provides for a ‘takings’ clause (5th amendment), that property
can only be taken by government for just cause and with full compensation.
Even in the USA this has been neglected.
Protecting rights
Many so-called human rights are really mechanisms to protect rights,
rather than human rights themselves. The UN Declaration recognises
the rights to legal recognition (6), the prevention of arbitrary arrest and
detention (9), effective remedies when their rights are abridged, a fair
trial, a presumption of innocence (11), asylum (14), and nationality (15).
One political right that is frequently presented as a human right is the
right to vote. Article 21 declares the right to participate “in periodic and
genuine elections...by universal and equal suffrage.” However, democracy
should be seen as one means of protecting those rights, but is not
such a right itself. It would be nonsense to talk of democracy for a prehistoric
man. The case for representative democracy is empirical rather
than moral: the historical evidence suggests that liberal democracies are
more likely to protect those rights than dictatorships. However, democracies
themselves are also great deniers of those rights, especially when
democracy becomes the tyranny of the majority. It is possible to have an
illiberal democracy which mistreats and denies human rights to individuals
and groups within that democracy.
- 46 -
Social and economic rights are not human rights
Articles 21 to 30 are ‘economic, social and cultural rights’ and have
characteristics totally different from the liberty rights traditionally
recognised as natural. The worst example is Article 24, ‘the right to rest
and leisure, including...periodic holidays with pay’! Other so called
‘rights’ include those to social security, work, just and favour able conditions
of employment, equal pay for equal work, just and fair remuneration,
an adequate standard of living, housing and medical care, education,
and the right to enjoy the arts. These are also enshrined in the
1966 UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is also
behind the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.
These may or may not be desirable, but they are not human rights. They
are claims to ‘welfare rights’ rather than ‘liberty rights’. They were
included in the UN Declaration at the insistence of the Soviet Union
who hoped to use them against the West. The West accepted them in
the hope that the Soviet Union would sign the declaration, although in
the end it abstained.
The case against these ‘welfare rights’ as human rights is first, that they
are not universal. For example, ‘holidays with pay’ can only belong to
employed workers, and excludes the self-employed, the unemployed and
homemakers. Second, they are not absolute, because they depend on relativities,
such as the vast differences that exist with regard to an adequate
standard of living from country to country and historical era to era. The
ability to satisfy those so-called rights vary greatly from state to state.
This is acknowledged in Article 22 on the right to social security, which
is qualified by “in accordance with the organisation and resources of
each State.” Third, they are not inalienable. For example, someone may
wish to surrender his ‘right’ to rest and leisure in order to increase his
income. People make trade-offs between desirable but conflicting goals.
So such claims fail to meet the necessary three criteria. A fourth argument
is that an ‘ought’ must involve a ‘can’, but these ‘welfare rights’ are
dependent on available resources, with most societies now and throughout
history lacking the necessary means to satisfy these aspirations.
Fifth, they demean natural rights: human rights are moral imperatives
- 47 -
that can be respected now, not economic and social aspirations that
might be satisfied in the future. Sixth, economic rights are an attack on
liberty rights in order to achieve these welfare rights. A meaningful right
to medical care would create an obligation on the medical profession to
provide that care, regardless of the wishes of doctors and nurses, thus
denying them freedom. Welfare demands are not human rights.
Group rights are not human rights
The UN Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights began in
Article 1 with the statement that “all peoples have the right to selfdetermination.”
Article 25 declared “the right of all peoples to natural
wealth and resources.” This was echoed in the Organisation of African
Unity’s Charter on Human and People’s Rights in 1981 that “all people’s
have a right be equal.” UNESCO declared “the right of all...people’s to
preserve their cultures.” The 1957 UN Convention on Indigenous and
Tribal Populations declared that “special measures shall be adopted for
the protection of the institutions, persons, property and labour of these
populations.” UN Conferences on Human Rights are usually dominated
by the assertion of these group rights.
The case against group rights begins when they fail to meet the three
necessary criteria. First, they are not universal because they are claims by
particular groups such as women or aboriginals, which means by definition
that they cannot belong to all humans. Second, they are not
absolute as one group is pitched against another, as in the right of selfdetermination
in Bosnia, and ethnic cleansing is encouraged with the
emphasis on group or cultural identity instead of respect for the rights of
others. Third, they are not inalienable, as immigrants frequently prove
when they willingly surrender their former identity in order to embrace
something new, as thousands of new American citizens do every day, as
do black British and integrated Jews. Fourth, the natural rights tradition
holds that human rights must belong to individual human beings and
cannot belong to any collective. Cultures, languages, tribes, and nations
are not rights-bearing entities. Fifth, cultural rights deny the equal rights
of every human being, but become an instrument for the special treatment
of certain groups, for example in positive discrimination.
- 48 -
It is important to recognise that certain groups within society such as
ethnic minorities, women and gays have been denied their human
rights, but the goal is to ensure that everyone has the same rights
respected, not that certain groups are entitled to special rights because
of their mistreatment in history.
For real human rights
We should believe in the protection and promotion of human rights,
but we should be concerned at the way the idea has become abused and
at the lack of sensitivity in its application to varied conditions. First, the
concept should not come to embrace every demand, every wish and
every desire. Human rights are so precious they deserve special consideration
and priority. Second, the promotion of human rights should show
some respect for different cultures, histories and conditions. The way in
which these rights should be respected may vary from society to society
and one should not assume that what is appropriate for America, or
Sweden, or Germany, can and should be transplanted to Belarus,
Estonia, Argentina, or Nigeria.
A clear understanding of the concept of human rights is vital for their
protection and promotion, especially for all those who are denied them
daily. Not all that is desirable is a right. Not all rights are human rights.
It is an obscenity to equate torture- such as giving electric shocks
through a person’s genitals- with not having a paid holiday. Every government
should be held accountable for its failures in protecting genuine
human rights.
- 49 -
Reading
Norman Barry, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, London,
Macmillan, 2000, chapter 9.
David Boaz, Libertarianism, New York, Free Press, 1997, chapter 3.
Maurice Cranston, What are Human Rights?, London, Bodley Head,
1962.
Walter Laqueur & Barry Rubin eds., The Human Rights Reader, New
York, Meridian, 1990, essays by Kenneth Minogue & Maurice
Cranston.
John Locke, A Second Treatise on Government, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1960 (1690).
Questions for thought
1. Does the right to life include the right to be fed?
2. Do national minorities have rights, or only individuals?
3. How can we protect genuine human rights?
- 50

ILLINOIS TEA PARTY NEWS 8/30/2011

llinois Tea Party News 8/30/11‏

12:33 AM
Reply ▼

Denise Cattoni

DCattoni@aol.com

To dcattoni@aol.com
Three Minutes Two Teleprompters
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/three-minutes-two-teleprompters


Rockford Tea Party on Champion news
http://www.championnews.net/2011/08/28/rockford-voters-have-a-clear-choice-in-2012/



Kirk's "High Wire" Act
Mike Quigley -- but also includes praise from an Illinois Tea Partier, who calls Kirk “fairly dependable.”


State of Illinois pays violent offenders and sex criminals to baby sit children
http://rebelpundit.com/2011/08/29/state-of-illinois-pays-violent-offenders-and-sex-criminals-to-baby-sit-children/


Obama cheered by illegal alien advocates, but they want more
The Illinois Democrat said the new policy represents "a fair and just way to deal with an important group of immigrant students." But Durbin was quick to add that he'll "closely monitor DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] to ensure it is fully ...

GOP staffers: Tax reform teed up for September

FoodPolitik: Greenpeace is neither green nor peaceful

Al Gore: Global warming skeptics this generation's racists

MEDIA FREAKS OVER BECK'S IRENE COMMENTS http://email.theblaze.com/gb40/c2.php?THBL/32785992/94780/H/N/V/http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://email.theblaze.com/THBL/jN32785992_94779_94774_F.htm http://email.theblaze.com/gb40/c2.php?THBL/32785992/94781/H/N/V/http://twitter.com/home?status=http://email.theblaze.com/THBL/jN32785992_94779_94774_T.htm&+
Last Friday, Glenn Beck talked about Hurricane Irene taking aim on the Northeast and he stressed the importance of preparing for any potential disaster. The Washington Post and CNN chose to slam Glenn and his religion. See the details HERE.



Misunderstanding of Obama's greatness reaches new levels -- You just don't know a good thing when it comes along, America. TheDC's Caroline May reports: "President Obama's disapproval rating reached its highest level to date Sunday, according to Gallup's daily presidential tracking poll. Based on the latest data, 55 percent of Americans say they disapprove of the job President Obama is doing. Just 38 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama's performance as president." Which just goes to show what ingrates you guys are. Come on, the guy cut short his vacation by an entire day, rolled up his sleeves, and stopped Irene singlehandedly. What more do you want, people? Jobs?
Share: http://go.madmimi.com/redirects/63442558990ae138b712f62970b5a86d?pa=5024910954 http://go.madmimi.com/redirects/24338d70fbb79ff0b0c0d53cd5e7826a?pa=5024910954



The Fed's Zero-Interest Bailout of Uncle Sam


Constitutional Convention Could be Called to Pass National Debt Relief Amendment


Debt ceiling fight a ‘Cold Civil War
"A few weeks ago, I ran into a fairly high-level Illinois Democrat at a party in Springfield. He said he’d taken my advice and was reading the New York Times’ “Disunion” Civil War blog. He also said he’d come to the conclusion that President Barack Obama should follow President Abraham Lincoln’s lead by suspending habeas corpus and then arresting all Tea Party-affiliated Republican congressmen."
http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/miller/7299409-452/debt-ceiling-fight-a-cold-civil-war.html


Judge rules Illinois congressional candidates can gather signatures
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-judge-rules-illinois-congressional-candidates-can-gather-signatures-20110826,0,2530785.story


New York Times: Bernanke blames politics for financial upheaval
The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, said Friday that the political battle this summer over the federal government’s borrowing and spending had disrupted financial markets “and probably the economy as well.”

TSA to offer buyouts to 3,000 workers
The Transportation Security Administration is seeking permission to offer voluntary buyouts to 3,000 of its employees, the agency confirmed to The Hill Friday.

The Hill: Distrust between White House, GOP leaves free trade bills in limbo
With only one week left of the summer recess, the White House and House Republican leadership are still missing a key ingredient needed to pass three long-delayed pending free trade agreements -- trust.



Statement from Regional Superintendents of Schools on Lawsuit
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/08/updated-statement-from-regional-superintendents-of-schools-on-lawsuit.html



Republicans must be defeated

http://peoplesworld.org/the-republicans-must-be-defeated/

Perry bills feds $349M for incarcerating illegals

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1419978



Marco Rubio defines the proper role of government
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/08/rubio-defines-the-proper-role-of-government.html


Bachmann calls out radical environmentalists

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bachmann-calls-out-radical-environmentalists/



The Hill: Bachmann’s bridge project could draw fire from Republican rivals
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is pushing a $690 million local transportation project that has raised questions from government-waste watchdogs and could become a target in the GOP presidential primary.

The Hill: Several Democrats attack State. Dept. pipeline finding
Capitol Hill opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline are attacking the State Department’s finding that the proposed project will cause minimal environmental harm if managed properly.
Protestors greet publicity hound Arizona sheriff "Go Home Joe"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/7323141-418/protestors-greet-publicity-hound-ariz-sheriff-go-home-joe.html


Pat Quinn 88% Toll Tax Hike Gives Metra Room to Hike Fares without Fear of Lost Customers
http://mchenrycountyblog.com/2011/08/27/pat-quinn-88-toll-tax-hike-gives-metra-room-to-hike-fares-without-fear-of-lost-customers/


Walking Into Mordor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNVpACRLaI&feature=youtu.be


Will the Democrats Trump Trumka
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/will_the_democrats_trump_trumka.html




Denise Cattoni
Illinois Tea Party
Illinois State Coordinator
Tea Party Patriots
630.290.2130
Illinois TEA Party FB
Twitter @IllinoisTea
Tea Party Press Journal

NYS NOW HAS A CONSTITUTION LOBBY 8 of 8

THE CHAIN OF OPPRESSION PART3

Factions -- The Chains of Oppression - Part III
The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part IIII of IV Parts
Factions in conflict with the Principle Faction

Illegal immigrants: It is often said that the first impression is the most important impression that you will make upon others. Suppose that the first impression that you make is an unwillingness to abide by the rules/laws of the host, when you are a guest; suppose someone came, invited, or not, into your home and started telling you that the wall colors were wrong, that they didn't like the pictures you had hung, that they didn't like carpeted floors, or that you should prepares them a meal and a bed. It would not be surprising if you caused them to exit your home, and assured them that they would never, again, have entry into your home. That impression that they gave was not what is expected of the guest, and any reaction you had to that belligerence is justified, even if force is necessary to remove them.

We are the collective owners of the country (our collective home), and, as such, have established rules/laws for entry into that home. They were enacted in accordance with the Constitution and are, as such, the law of the land. Those who enter with their first step being a violation of those rules/laws have, as the unwanted guest in your house, established an impression that is lasting, and totally unacceptable.

Those who wipe their muddy feet on your clean carpet are not a part of any acceptable class of people, visitors, or those here by right. They have, by their actions, spit in the face of what this country stands for. It is not a melting pot for the entire world, nor was it intended to be destroyed from within, by a cancer that grows at astronomical rates, and, quite often, at the expense of our own depleted treasury. Each person that enters illegally, or overstays their permitted visit, is a greater threat to the future of our country than any military threat, from any other country, without comparison. The military threat, we have proven, cannot prevail against us. This insidious intrusion, however, eats away at our country's soul with every day that they remain.

Illegal immigration advocates: Those who would advocate forbearance in dealing with these intruders are not adherents to the Principle Faction, nor are they adherents to the laws, concepts, traditions, manners, customs, nor anything else, that we hold dear -- and must continue to hold dear, if we are to survive as the United States, our birthright.

These people, though they may otherwise not be in conflict with the Principle Faction, and may even be of the class of "We the People", or "citizen of the United States", are, by their support of violation of the law of the land, in conflict with the Principle Faction. They have denied the concept of assimilation, and have thereby provided a means of destruction of the entire purpose of the Founders and Framers, for the creation of this great nation.

Anti- religious groups, Atheists, Agnostics: When we understand our heritage, we recognize that the Founders and Framers were religious, though perhaps not pious, men. Both Washington and Jefferson had problems with organized religion, as many of us do today. Regardless, they had beliefs founded on both Old and New Testaments, and adhered to the Christian moral values, without question. Never did they challenge the concept that was, eventually, embodied in the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court Building (built 1932-35) in Washington, D.C., contains over a dozen depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandment, sculpted in stone, and permanent not only in that building, but in the hearts and heritage of this country. Congress begins each daily session with prayer, and has done so from their first gathering. President's have called for days of prayer and thanksgiving, in official proclamations, throughout our history.

However, there are those advocates who have challenged the right of a state, a county, school, or even a small town, to begin with prayer; display the same representation found in the Supreme Court building, or erection of seasonal displays of Christian holidays on public land.

And, in a somewhat surprising response, they have found proponents of their advocacy in those very halls of government mentioned above. All under the guise that such actions and displays are "unconstitutional".

How can that be unconstitutional which was practiced by the very authors of that document, and those who ratified it? Their practices and beliefs were not in question then, and there is the more serious question as to whether even an amendment to the Constitution would be Constitutional if it abrogated the First Amendment.

Surely, we cannot even begin to consider that we may remain as even a vestige of the United States if we allow the denigration of those practices considered by most to be fundamental to the establishment of the country -- by those very people who caused to be carved in stone the underpinnings of the moral compass by which we found our course.

So long as they adhere to the Principle Faction, and otherwise meet the requirements of class, and distance themselves from those who advocate to the contrary, they may be considered to be of the Principle Faction.

Those who continue to advocate legal sanctions, removal of displays, or any other means of undermining that which has stood so long, are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place in this country, since they choose not to assimilate, rather to change that which is our heritage.

Homosexual rights groups: Some will argue that homosexuality is a disease, others that it is a lifestyle choice. Each is a diversion from the crux of the matter. It is considered by the Christian moral values adopted by this country, 220 years ago, to be immoral. Though with the exception of some local jurisdictions, and some states, it has not been considered criminal -- just immoral.

Even when criminal, it was seldom prosecuted, since it was conducted between consenting parties, in private circumstances. To intrude on that privacy was as much a crime as the behavior itself, at least under the principles of the Constitution. However, if we look at a few of the steps taken to endeavor to assign legitimacy and morality to the practice, we will find an excellent example of the destructiveness of factions. The common terminology used to describe homosexuals was often "queer" (which is rather what their behavior was considered to be), or the more objectionable "fag" or "faggot" (a derogatory term).

As late as the fifties and sixties, homosexual, or, queer, bars and clubs were not uncommon. Their public behavior was normal, and their private behavior, in such facilities, was, to use the expression of the time, "done in the closet". And, very few had objection to such behavior, so long as it did not "spill onto the streets".

There was an effort in California, back in that period, to establish a homosexual community in the village of Alpine, in the High Sierra. Even then, there was no general outrage, since the village would be their own 'closet'.

Next came a change in terminology. A word that was frequently used to indicate jovial, happy, light, was adopted by the homosexuals. Back then, people would go to a "gay party" meaning that it was going to be sitting around in a light and humorous atmosphere, perhaps telling jokes and stories. However the theft, yes, I mean theft, of that word, which had only positive connotations, was a move to give an air of legitimacy and acceptance to a behavior that was, heretofore, considered immoral. A major coup by this faction managed to change the image of the homosexual, and to remove from usage a word that was commonly used, even then.

Since that time, this once frowned upon group has managed to use the courts and legislative process to provide special protection and special privileges from what was, through most of our history, a subject unworthy of discussion. They have taken a word, "marriage", with millennia of understanding of the definition, and still recognized in US Code as between a man and woman, and have managed to steal that word for their own uses and economic gain.

They have successfully lobbied for legislation that forces the government schools to encourage such behavior, contrary to the wishes of the parents who are clearly among the Principle Faction, and are advocating a moral degeneration of our society.

Those advocates of homosexuality are in conflict with the Principle Faction, and have no place, with the exception of the closet, in our country.

Black rights advocates: As explained in the "We the People" series (linked above), a second class of citizen was established by the Fourteenth Amendment, and confirmed by a subsequent amendment and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. However, through a subtle process of indoctrination, beginning in the late fifties and early sixties, the intent of that Amendment has been converted to an application that has generated havoc, loss of property, and even loss of life.

The "civil rights" movement of that period moved us from a society that recognized the Principle Faction (basically, a fundamentally white culture) to one that has legislated, encouraged, and enforced against, that society, undermining it, in favor of granting privileges to those citizens of the United States, as well as other without such standing, under the guise of equality, greater even than that afforded to "We the People".

Society, itself, had moved in that direction, at the rate that was warranted by the people, not the government. Whether Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, or Fats Domino; acceptance of negros as a part of our culture, was in the works. Society, itself, was approaching a degree of equality, voluntarily.

Instead, it turned to demonstrations (not the preferred form of legislative influence), by both sides. And, since those early days of civil rights demonstrations, they often turned to violence, instigated by both sides. America has been in a near constant state of turmoil, since the time that the government stepped in and tried to privilege the second class even above the first class. And some of that violence, today, perpetrated by those who believe that "change has not come fast enough", is nothing more than rioting and thievery, perpetrated under the guise of equality, couched in phrases about social and economic 'justice'.

These, groups, relying upon judicial intimidation and violence, have proven that their methods and goals are in conflict with the Principle Faction, the Constitution and its principles, and our way of life.

Woman's right advocates: Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, is probably the best known advocate of women's rights. However, as much as she discussed the subject in correspondence with her husband, he never did advocate such a change in the legal relationship of women within that society.

Over the years, the nation evolved, not turning against the Founding principles, rather, in a social or societal form, with Wyoming being the first to enact women's suffrage laws. Rights of ownership of land and/or inheritance were becoming common, and barriers were falling, as well as advancing women in the society, without intervention by the federal government.

Finally, in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the federal government intervened in an area that was reserved by the Constitution to the states. As with the Fifteenth Amendment (race suffrage), the right of the states to determine who could vote in elections, both state and national, as protected by the Constitution, was now being assumed by the federal government.

Not that it was a bad move, rather, that it was the abrogation of the right of the states to make such a decision, that was so appalling. It was just seven years earlier that the right of the states to be represented, by senators chosen by their respective legislatures, in Congress, was removed by the Seventeenth Amendment. This was, effectively, the end of states' rights.

As contrary to the original construction of the Constitution as this was, it also opened a means of the presumption of federal authority in manipulating the society to the will of the powers in Washington, D.C., and those who influence such social change.

Over time, unconstitutional legislation has resulted the reduction of the male to a subordinate position in our society, where lawsuits and intimidation work in only one direction, to the detriment, and at the expense of, one half of the society.

Our society, which was based upon rewards for performance, was converted to one where rewards are mandated by quotas, with little regard to ability and performance. This denies to society the making of the choices that were assured and protected by the Constitution.

The advocacy of federal intervention, as opposed to the normal evolution of these norms in our culture, is in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and is inconsistent with the Principle Faction.

Christian militia: Militia, the right to collective self-defense, is embodied in the Second Amendment, and has been a part of our heritage and culture since the Magna Carta. Since 1215, that right has existed, and, since that time, the Militia have always been subordinate to civil authority and have been geographic in their composition. From the Shires of England, to the counties, townships, villages and plantations of the seventeen hundreds, participation in the militia was a right and was a duty. The only exceptions were exclusions for certain people because of vocation, and those that were "inimical to the cause of American Liberty" (Tories). To exclude people who do not claim to be of the Christian faith is contrary to the Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded.

Christian militia are inconsistent the Principle Faction

Islamic groups: Islam is not just a religion. Islam, in its current manifestation, is a social and political system, as well. It is a social system that includes a number of practices that are considered abhorrent, by our culture. Its social/judicial system manifests extreme punishments for what our culture might perceive to be a minor transgression or no crime at all.

Though two hundred years ago, "Mohametmen" simply practiced as a religion, and were accepted as a religion by the Framers, their character has changed to be anything but just a religion.

We can look to Europe and see the consequences of the intrusion of Islam into a society. Eventually, the demand for change or legal reform to comply with their social/political system takes many forms, including physical abuse against people that oppose them; and the obstruction of roadways so that they can hold collective prayer absent a facility for such service; exercising their form of justice, including capital punishment, contrary to the host country's laws, and often exempt from prosecution for crimes that would otherwise result in incarceration, or worse.

Much like the illegal immigrants, members of the Islamic faith come here with a total disregard for our laws, our culture, and our society. They come with the intention of forcing change, by intimidation, by their numbers, or any means that suits them. Their presence in the country, under their present manifestation, is contrary to the Constitution and its principles, and contrary to the Principle Faction.

The Congress: Congress, especially after their vote for the Debt Ceiling Increase, has demonstrated that they are a faction unto themselves, without regard for the Constitution or the will of the people.

The Congress acts in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country.

The Executive Branch: The Executive Branch, tasked with enforcing the laws of the land, has continued to ignore existing laws regarding immigration, and when forced into enforcing such laws, does so with a leniency that is more encouraging to the violation of the immigration laws than deterring them.

The Executive Branch has declared that Tea Party members; Constitutionalists; Gun Rights (Second Amendment) advocates, combat veterans, and others, who fall well within the Principle Faction as "terrorist".

The executive Branch of the government is in conflict with the Principle Faction of this country

The US government: The government "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance", to lie, steal and even murder, members of the Principle Faction, and has done so with immunity from prosecution.

The Administrative Branches of government are in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

State governments: State governments, with rare exception, do not defy federal intrusions against the Principle Faction, and often participate in the enforcement of unconstitutional polices and laws, receiving compensation from the federal government for the submission to its assumed and unconstitutional authority.

The state governments are acting in conflict with the Constitution and its principles, and the Principle Faction.

Of course, within each of these factions are members who are adherents to the Principle Faction and the Constitution, though they may be facilitating that faction in opposition to the Principle Faction. Rather than suffering guilt by association, they would be well advised to understand that adherence to the Principle Faction and assimilation is imperative.

OATH KEEPERS POLITICIAN TOWN HALL

b-small
Quick Links

Oath Keepers Site

Join Oath Keepers

National And State Chapter Forums

Donate

Contact Oath Keepers

Youtube

Facebook

Twitter


Politician Censors Town Hall - Police Seize Cameras


Click here to watch the video and read the entire post



"Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes Responds to Shocking Video of Citizens' Rights Being Violated"



This is like something out of Soviet Russia. Apparently, now only "authorized journalists" (as in "state authorized propaganda agents") are allowed to film politicians as they "interact" with the public. The public, as in you "little people," are not allowed to film. "You are not the press," the officer snaps as he disarms a man of his camera. Apparently this officer has not heard of blogging, or citizen journalism.

Or perhaps he has heard of those, and that is exactly what he and his masters are trying to stop. Bottom line is that you are not a safe, friendly, dependable "authorized journalist" and letting you film, letting you report or blog on what you see, well, that would be "dangerous" and must be stopped for "security reasons" to "protect the constituents" though none of the constituents are complaining about being filmed.



In this video, large news cameras are clearly pointing not just at the congresscritter, but also at the audience. But the news media cameramen are left alone. They are free to film everyone, and anyone at this public event. Only the audience members are coerced into surrendering their cameras, with the obvious threat of force contained in the 'law enforcement" officer's words when he says 'I'm not going to ask you again" and "are we going to do this the easy way, or the hard way."



When a citizen asserts her rights, and says it is not against the law, the officer replies with "yes it is. That's what I've been told.' Apparently, this officer has moved from enforcing whatever laws are actually passed to just enforcing whatever the politician or his staff says. He is now a "decree-by-our-betters enforcement officer."



This is disturbing and disgusting. And this is a Republican politician. Don't think for an instant that it is only the leftist politicians who consider you beneath them, and beneath their pals in the state authorized mainstream media.



Folks, you are being treated, at best, like children in a day-care center, or, at worst, like inmates in a prison, or like sheep with wolves as the supposed "sheep dogs.' Get out of line, the man comes and takes you away.



This facade of normalcy -- this soft, thinly veiled despotism -- cannot last much longer before either the mask- and the gloves -- come off, and we are subdued under an open tyranny, or we the people put a stop to it once and for all, throwing off the shackles that are being forged around our ankles, by means of "laws" and "rules" and decrees by 'authorities" who make up law as they go. We are in that twilight zone in between the two, between liberty and slavery, but that is not going to stay that way. It will go one way or the other. Which will it be? Which will you leave your children in? -- Stewart Rhodes



Click here to watch the Video and to comment

Support Operation Sleeping Giant, Join Oath Keepers and get involved.

Operation Sleeping Giant

Join Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is growing FAST, but like General Patton, we are outpacing our own supply lines. Your donations are "fuel" for our advance! If you would like to support the Oath Keepers vital mission to teach the current serving about their oath and about the Constitution so they will stand firm and do what is right, and our second mission to remind veterans of their oath and oblig

PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY FREEDOM

Principles For a Free Society FREEDOM
By Nigle Ashford
Freedom
“The only freedom that deserves the name is that to pursuing our own good
in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or
impede their efforts to obtain it.”
John Stuart Mill
What is freedom?
Freedom means that one should be able to choose to act without interference
by others. One should be able to decide how one wants to
live one’s life, unless the action interferes with the liberty of others.
Liberty is another word (or synonym) for freedom. To protect freedom
is one of the primary purposes of government.
The moral value of freedom is now recognised as a major feature of the
modern world, but it was not always so. For most of the history of
mankind, it was thought that the purpose of government was to promote
virtue, the good life and the good society. Humans were expected
to work towards a common good decided by society and to subordinate
their own interests and wants to a higher good. Originally freedoms or
liberties were specific rights or entitlements given to particular groups or
individuals, such as a baron or a guild. There was no general right to
freedom. The idea of freedom as a general condition belonging to all was
a development of the 18th century and associated with Hobbes and
Locke. Locke stated “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to
preserve and enlarge freedom.” The purpose of government was to protect
the freedom of individuals. This became one of the themes of the
nineteenth century, the rise of freedom as the primary political value. In
the twentieth century it came under threat from two sources: those who
argued that freedom was a minor value that should be subordinated to
the achievement of a higher goal, such as communism or a racially pure
state, and from those, such as socialists, who sought to change the concept
of freedom to justify a more extensive interference in people’s lives
by government.
- 35 -
The right to live one’s own life
Freedom is often expressed in the language of rights. I have a right to
decide where I live, or where I work, or with whom I live my life. No
one should force me or stop me from doing what I wish, provided I
respect the rights of others. This comes from the natural rights tradition
of Locke. Liberty means acting within one’s rights, whereas it is not freedom
to impinge on the rights of others. That would be an abuse of freedom,
or ‘licence’.
Freedom is identified with limited government and the free market. The
role of government is to provide the rules or framework that enables everyone
to be free, to protect them from infringements on their freedom by
others. The free market is associated with economic freedom or freedom of
choice: the freedom of the consumer to buy, the freedom of the trader to
fix the price of his goods and services (and of the consumer to accept or
refuse to pay it), the freedom of the worker to choose his job or profession,
and the freedom of the producer to produce what he wishes and to employ
whom he chooses. This freedom can only exist in capitalist societies.
The individual is the best judge of his own interests
Only the person himself has the knowledge of his own wants, preferences
and desires, his goals in life, and therefore his interests. It implies
that man has free will, and his choices are not simply determined
by his circumstances or social background. He can use his reason and
understanding of morality to make the right choices for him. Only the
individual knows his own wants and preferences. Others may have their
own ideas about what is right or appropriate for someone else, but none
of them can have the same degree of knowledge as the person himself.
Freedom means a rejection of paternalism, that others are in a better
position to make decisions affecting one’s own life.
Freedom promotes the interests of all
There is no conflict between freedom and order, or the common good
or the interests of others. Freedom operates in the long-term interests of
- 36 -
all. The utilitarians were great supporters of freedom because it maximises
interests. The result of a free society will be, as Jeremy Bentham
described it, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.”
Adam Smith developed the idea of ‘the invisible hand’, or what is sometimes
described as ‘spontaneous order.’ Each individual left to his own
devices was “led as if by an invisible hand to promote an end which was
not part of his intention.” Individuals left to be free to purse their own
interests will be led to cooperate with others for their mutual interest
and for society as a whole, promoting the common good. One has to
satisfy the wants of others in order to satisfy one’s own wants. In The
Wealth of Nations Smith claimed, “It is not from the benevolence of the
butcher, the brewer or baker that we expect our dinner but from their
regard to their own interests.” Many of the benefits in society arise from
the unintended consequences of the actions of others, “the result of
human action, but not of human design” in the words of Adam
Ferguson.
Freedom leads to the growth of knowledge
John Stuart Mill argued for toleration, a willingness to allow all to think,
speak and act in ways of which we disapprove. The other person may
indeed be right, or we can improve our own views and understanding
by trying to understand that of others, or we can change the other person
by persuading him and others of the errors of his ways. “I detest
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is a
phrase associated with the French philosopher Voltaire. In a free society
a variety of opinions and beliefs will be expressed and tested in the competition
of ideas. Truth will drive out falsity. The Austrian philosopher
Friedrich Hayek described one consequence of a free society as the
growth of knowledge, and knowledge which cannot be located in one
place or body but is widely dispersed in the minds of every individual.
Liberty allows for the unforeseen and the unpredictable. Central planning,
and forcing individuals to fit in with a certain end goal, prevents
new ideas from emerging and experiments from being conducted.
- 37 -
Positive “liberty” is not liberty
However some use the term freedom in a very different sense, not in the
traditional sense of ‘did someone prevent me from doing something?’
but the ability to act, or the power to obtain my desires. This identifies a
difference between a higher and a lower self, real from apparent interests.
This was the source of Marx’s concept of ‘false consciousness,’ that people
did not recognise what was in their true or real interests, the overthrow
of capitalism. Only Marxists and the Communist party truly
understood that and therefore should be given the power to achieve it.
This highlights one problem with this idea: it is abused by rulers who
claim to know what is in everyone else’s best interests rather than ask the
people themselves. Jean Jacques Rousseau used the term freedom to
mean obedience to the General Will, or the common good. Any dissidents
therefore should be “forced to be free.” This, of course, from the
common understanding of liberty is nonsense.
The Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin labeled the first concept ‘negative
liberty’ and the second ‘positive liberty’ in a famous essay ‘Two Concepts
of Liberty.’ He defined negative liberty as “an area with which man can
act unobstructed by others.” Freedom is thus the realm of unhindered
actions. Hayek described it as “the absence of coercion.” Berlin defined
‘positive liberty’ as “being one’s own master.” He argued that the second
was not liberty at all, but ‘power.’ The denial of liberty involves an
intention to prevent an action. The false concept of liberty is another
word for the lack of power. The difference is between being unable to
buy a book because the state has banned it, and because the book-shop
does not have a copy. The first is a denial of freedom; the second is not.
Positive liberty also implies that the individual should direct himself
to a particular end. Thus the individual appears to exist not for himself
but to satisfy the purposes of collectivities such classes, nations and
races. We exist to serve some higher end, chosen by others rather than
our own purposes and goals. Margaret Thatcher challenged this. “Choice
is the essence of ethics: if there were no choice, there would be no ethics,
no good, no evil; good and evil only have meaning so far as man is free
to choose.”
- 38 -
The harm principle
Law by its nature constrains individuals from exercising their freedom,
by threatening punishment if they act in certain ways. People are expected
to conform and obey. When is it appropriate for the law to be used
in preventing liberty? John Stuart Mill, in his book On Liberty, provided
a classic formula: ‘the harm principle.’ “The sole end for which mankind
are warranted.... individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty
of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for
which power can legitimately be exercised over any other member of a
civilised community against his will is preventing harm to others. His
own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” In other
words, people should be prevented by law by acting as they wish only
when those actions harm another person or persons. Of course friends
and family and even strangers may seek to convince someone to behave
in a different manner: to live somewhere else, to marry someone else, to
work somewhere else, but these are not areas where the law had a place.
A freedom agenda
As freedom is the right to make choices about every aspect of your life,
provided it respects the equal freedom of others, it is impossible to list
every freedom. There are some liberties which have received particular
attention.
Freedom of conscience, thought and expression. There should be toleration
for different and diverse opinions. The media should be
allowed to publish what they wish. Every religion should be allowed to
be practised. Every individual should be allowed to express their own
opinions without punishment. People have the right to criticise the
views of others but not to prevent them from expressing those opinions.
Truth will emerge from the competition of ideas and beliefs.
Freedom of contract. One should able to trade with whomever one
chooses. There should be freedom to buy and sell with whomever one
wishes at whatever price can be mutually agreed. This also means freedom
between employer and employee to agree the terms of their cooper-
- 39 -
ation. The state has the role to ensure that such agreements are genuinely
voluntary and does not involve force or fraud. The state also exists to
ensure that contracts are kept by providing courts to enable disputes
about those contracts to be peacefully resolved.
Freedom of association. One should be able to associate or cooperate
with whomever one wishes for whatever purpose, unless it conspires
against the freedoms of others. There should be freedom to marry or
have intimate relations with whom you choose, provided it is by mutual
consent. One should be able to combine with others who share mutual
interests, whether these are political, forming political parties and interest
groups, economic, through business groups or trade unions, or social,
such as stamp collectors or folk dancers.
Freedom is the most precious of values because it is the basis of all other
values. It gives them meaning. It allows us to live our own lives as we
choose. But it also requires the restraint not to interfere in the lives of
others. Every individual, every society, and especially every state, finds
this difficult to achieve.
- 40 -
Reading
Isaiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
1969.
Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, London, Routledge, 1960,
chapters 1-5.
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, London, University of
Chicago Press, 1962, chapter 1.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, London, Penguin, 1971 (1859).
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, Liberty Press, 1981
(1776).
Questions for thought
1. Why is freedom good?
2. Should the law impose any regulations on whom you work for, how
much you work for, and how many hours you work?
3. Should drugs be legalised?
- 41

SCHOOL OF FREEDOM 104C THE FRENCH AND INDAIN WAR

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)

The English claim to land in the American colonies when the first settlers arrived in 1606 in Jamestown, Virginia was based on explorations of John Cabot[1] in 1497 and 1498 from Newfoundland to the Carolinas. Cabot was an Italian explorer who was commissioned to find a western route to Asia by King Henry VII.



Claims by France for many of those same lands were based on French explorer Jacques Cartier[2] who, with his crew, spent the winter of 1535 at the site of present-day Quebec City. Cartier was the first European to sail down the St. Lawrence River and discover the Great Lakes region, which was close to the Iroquois village of Stadacona.[3]



In 1570, possibly because of contacts the Indians had with explorers, the Iroquois Confederation[4] was formed among the Iroquois, Mohawk, Seneca, Onadaga and Oneida people. An Iroquois Chief, Dekanawidah, wrote a Constitution that stated, in part:



"The soil of the earth from one end of the land to the other is the property of the people who inhabit it. By birthright the Ongwehonweh (Original beings) are the owners of the soil, which they own and occupy and none other may hold it. The same law has been held from the oldest times. The Great Creator has made us of the one blood and of the same soil he made us and as only different tongues constitute different nations he established different hunting grounds and territories and made boundary lines between them."



By 1606, when the Virginia Charter[5] was given to the Virginia Company of London by King James of Britain, the English claimed all the lands west of their settlements along the Atlantic Ocean, and the French claimed the lands along the rivers and streams from their settlements and forts. The first settlers arrived at Jamestown,[6] Virginia May 14, 1607, led by Captain John Smith. In 1620 one hundred people arrived on the Mayflower at Cape Cod. The men wrote and signed the Mayflower Compact[7]which described their purpose in their journey and became the foundation document for the Constitution 180 years later:



"Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience"



The Indians and the English settlers seemed to agree that those who lived on this land did so because they had been blessed by their Creator.



In 1608, France's Samuel de Champlain[8] founded the city of Quebec. Champlain became friends with Algonguin and other Indians who urged Champlain to help them fight against the Iroquois Indians. French expanded their forts and their trade into the area that is now New York and conflicts began over control of the land. The French considered the Ohio River a vital link between their settlements in New France (Canada) and Louisiana. They built a fort near Niagara Falls at the mouth of the Niagara River, which connects Lake Eire and Lake Ontario in western New York. That 35-mile river was the access to the Great Lakes and, via the Ohio River, the westward route to the heartland of the continent making it a vital link for the French.



In 1749, King George II of England granted the American and British investors in the Ohio Company 200,000 acres of land on the upper waters of the Ohio River, consisting of territory covering most of modern-day Ohio, plus eastern Indiana, western Pennsylvania and north of the Ohio River. From its post at Wills Creek, now Cumberland, Maryland, the Ohio Company planned additional settlements and started to open an 80-mile wagon road to the Monongahela River.



By 1753, the French began to drive out English traders and to claim the Ohio River Valley for France. French soldiers seized and imprisoned a group of surveyors sent by the Ohio Company and began building forts along Lake Erie and the Ohio River.



The French believed they had a right to all the lands surrounding the tributaries on rivers they controlled. The Ohio Company believed it was their land since King George II granted a portion of lands within the boundaries of the Virginia Charter. An old Indian, hearing the argument said, "You English claim all on one side of the river and you French all on the other side; where does the Indian's land lie?"



In May of 1754, George Washington, and his men, were met by the French and a battle took place that he described in a letter to his brother, John Augustine,[9] in which he said: "I fortunately escaped without any wound." Two months later, on July 3, 1754, exactly 22 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed, the opening battle of the French and Indian War began with 700 French soldiers and their Indian allies attacking George Washington's hastily built Fort Necessity[10]. The attack took place as a drenching rain nearly filled the trenches in the stockade making it impossible for Washington and his forty militiamen and a dozen Indians to keep gunpowder and guns dry enough to shoot. For the first and only time in his life, Washington surrendered. He and his men were allowed to return and report to the governor of Virginia, where he resigned his commission.



In 1755, King George II of England sent one of his top generals, Edward Braddock, with forty years experience, to eject the French from the Ohio Territory. Washington was re-appointed as General Braddock's aide and guide to the area. Washington suggested that the Virginia Rangers, who were familiar with the country and with Indian warfare, lead the advance troops. However, Braddock angrily dismissed the notion that the "untrained" Americans lead his "professional" army, who were dressed in full uniform, and had cleaned their weapons the night before.



Braddock allowed his troops to march forward through the center of the plain without Indian scouts or the offered Virginia Rangers in advance and, according to the writings of Washington Irving describing the event: "were met with a murderous fire from among trees and a ravine on the right."[11]



Major General Edward Braddock, pride of the British military, was shot off his horse, fatally wounded with a bullet in his lung, in the battle for Fort Duquesne, built on the current site of Pittsburgh. His aides, Captains Orme and Morris were wounded and disabled early in the battle; his secretary was killed. Most of the Virginia Rangers who were covering Braddock's position were killed or wounded. But George Washington, who was in every part of the field and a conspicuous target for the enemy, miraculously went unscathed. At one point Washington sprang from his horse, seized a piece of field artillery from a frightened, leaderless and seemingly paralyzed soldier, and pointed it where he needed cover for his men.



Later, in a letter to his half brother, John Augustine, George Washington summed up his previous year's experience following Braddock's death, which ended his service to the British military as follows:[12]



"I was employed to go on a journey in the winter, when I believe few or none would have undertaken it, and what did I get by it? - My expenses borne! I was then appointed, with trifling pay, to conduct a handful of men to the Ohio. What did I get by that? Why, after putting myself to a considerable expense in equipping and providing necessaries for the campaign, I went out and was soundly beaten and lost all! "



However, the war that began in Ohio Territory and called the French and Indian War, soon became a world war known as the Seven Years War that impacted the future of nations on four continents. France was in a coalition involving Austria, Russia, Sweden and Saxony (Later party of Germany). Britain was aligned with Prussia, headed by Frederick the Great in Berlin and all members of the coalitions became involved, including India.



The war that began in 1753 with the building of a French Fort on the current site of Pittsburgh became the Seven Years War that ended in 1763 with the Treaty of Paris[13] and left all the nations involved in it with massive public debt and serious economic problems. When King George III and England's parliament passed new taxes and oppressive laws for the American colonies to pay the debts incurred by the ten years of wars, the colonists rebelled.

[1] John Cabot -http://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Explorers/johncabot.html

[2] Jacques Cartier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Cartier

[3] Discovery of Canada & Quebec - http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/quebec/q1.html

[4] Native Americans - Iroquois Confederacy - http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm

[5] Virginia Charters and Boundaries - 1606 - http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/charters.html

[6] Jamestown - 1606 - http://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/page.php?page_id=6

[7] Yale Avalon Project - The Mayflower Compact http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm

[8] Samuel de Champlain- founds Quebec - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_de_Champlain

[9] Letter from Washington to John Augustine Washington , May 31, 1754- http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi01.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=48&division=div1

[10] National Park Service - Battle of Fort Necessity - http://www.nps.gov/fone/fonehist.htm

[11] Major General Edward Braddock, shot off his horse is fatally wounded -Ridpath's History, Vol XIV, Page564

[12] Washington's Letter to John Augustine Washington, August 2, 1755 - http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_gwa2630&person=gwa

[13] Treaty of Paris - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h754.html

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)


Mary Mostert has written articles on political and social issues for more than 60 years, including a weekly newspaper column for Gannett Newspapers. She has written four books, including books on the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. Her e-mail is mary@bannerofliberty.com and website is http://www.bannerofliberty.com

The George Washington School of Freedom
2975 W. Executive Pkwy, Suite 183
Lehi, UT 84043
www.gwschool.net

(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)




The George Washington School of Freedom Inc, 2975 W. Executive Pkwy. Suite 183, Lehi, UT 84043, USA

To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?jCyc7CwsHLSsTCwcrAycDLRmtOzsjAysHGw=

NYS NOW HAS A CONSTITUTION LOBBY 7 of 8

NYS NOW HAS A CONSTITUTION LOBBY 6 of 8

PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY FREE ENTRPRISE

Free enterprise
“To be controlled in our economic affairs is to be ... controlled in everything.”
Friedrich Hayek
By Nigel Ashford
What is free enterprise?
Free enterprise is the economic system based on the voluntary exchange
of goods and services, in which the people determine their own economic
affairs, by deciding where they work, or invest, how to spend or save
the fruits of their labour, and with whom they trade. The people are free
to make these decisions in a free enterprise society because a framework
of law allows citizens to own property, to exchange what is theirs
(including their own labour) and to enter into legally binding contracts.
This governance of laws allows individuals to co-operate to their mutual
benefit by forming legal associations to conduct their commerce, including
corporations, partnerships and not-for-profit organisations.
Government has a role to play in protecting people’s property and
enforcing their contracts so that people may trade with one another with
confidence, but in a free enterprise society, that role is strictly limited.
Economic barriers to free enterprise, such as taxes, regulation and government
spending, are kept to a minimum in this society.
Trade and exchange have been an integral part of every human civilisation,
and a limited recognition of the value of these activities was a key
factor in how the West grew rich. It was in those areas where the power
of church and state waned and where there were competing sources of
authority, that a degree of economic freedom allowed people to prosper
and their numbers to grow. In the Italian city-states of the Renaissance,
in the seventeenth century Dutch Republic and above all in England
and her American colonies, the people’s relative economic liberty made
these nations centres of commerce. It was not until the final quarter of
the eighteenth century, however, that a Scottish economist named Adam
Smith pioneered a systematic theory of how free enterprise worked. In a
book entitled The Wealth of Nations, Smith sought to explain the prosperity
that had grown up in England since the advent of its limited, constitu-
- 28 -
tional monarchy in 1688. The book went into print in 1776, the same year
as the Declaration of American Independence and greatly influenced the
founding fathers of the United States, whose rebellion Smith supported.
This idea of an economy which largely ran itself, without the supervision
of a centralised government, in time transformed economic thinking
in the West. Smith’s new theory challenged the economic practice of
the day — a system of mercantilism by which monarchs and ministers
closely directed the economy. The old economic order was based on the
idea that the source of a nation’s wealth lay in its stock of gold, silver
and precious metals. Commerce was thought best conducted by granting
monopolies to guilds and corporations. Laws were passed to suppress
wages and keep prices high, and a complex web of high taxes and duties
were levied to finance the military adventurism which governments pursued
to plunder the resources of other nations, and enslave their people.
Smith turned these ideas on their head, demonstrating that the wealth of
nations was derived from a division of labour which allowed people to
specialise at providing the consumer with what he wanted. Money, he
argued, was only of value in terms of what it could buy. Competition
increased purchasing power and therefore created prosperity.
Free enterprise raises workers’ wages
The ideas that led Adam Smith to advocate free trade, cheap government
and open markets, are still raising the living standard of working
people today. It is the nations that embraced these ideas, such as the
USA, which have enjoyed the greatest latitude that worker’s wages have
risen to the highest levels on Earth. By contrast, those nations that have
experimented with government planning have failed to lift people out of
poverty and hunger. Free enterprise raises workers’ wages by stimulating
people’s willingness and ability to produce that which their fellow man
requires. That is the principal reason why it takes fewer man hours to
earn enough money to buy a television, an automobile or a personal
computer in the USA than it does in Russia. It is productivity, not hard
work, that matters. People in poor countries usually labour long hours
but their ability to provide the consumer with what he wants and their
rewards for doing so are limited by the intervention of government. Free
- 29 -
enterprise raises people’s real wages because there are powerful incentives
to serve consumers who can easily communicate what they want.
Free enterprise satisfies consumers
In a free enterprise economy, people are able to serve customers thanks
to the price mechanism. This vast communications network of rising
and falling prices tells workers and investors where consumer demand is
increasing and where it is decreasing. Higher consumer demand for a
particular product pushes up prices, increasing profits to investors. These
increased profits attract more investment, and push up wages to attract
more workers into that line of work. So society produces more of what
the consumer wants, and as the supply of a particular good or service
increases, the long-term price to the customer will fall. The built-in
incentives of the free enterprise system ensures that society’s resources are
diverted to satisfying the wants of consumers, and away from those areas
of production that are meeting less urgent needs. In this system, the
consumer is sovereign, dictating where and how society’s resources are
used, by deciding how his income is spent or saved. That income, in
turn, will be higher to the degree to which that individual is supplying
society with the goods and services that it demands.
Free enterprise cuts the cost of living and creates new products
Free enterprise is a discovery process which allows people to discover what
the customer wants. The freedom to buy and sell allows goods and services
to come onto the market, that people are then free to embrace or reject as
they like. Free enterprise allows entrepreneurs to innovate with new ideas
for new products and to refine existing products. The price mechanism
then signals to workers and investors whether these new products are wanted
or not. Initially, new products like Video Cassette Recorders, microwave
ovens or cellular telephones are expensive, and only accessible to the rich,
but as products are tried, tested and modified, and as more capital is invested
in their development, the price falls. This way, the luxuries of the wealthy
few become the necessities of the many. And as a free enterprise society
produces an ever increasing array of goods and services, so the price of those
products as a proportion of people’s income falls, cutting the cost of living.
- 30 -
Free enterprise encourages productivity
The incentives inherent to the free enterprise economy also foster
productivity by tapping into people’s willingness to serve others better
than any other economic system that has yet been devised by man.
Because people are free to keep the fruits of their labour and take risks
in a system of free enterprise, the rewards for serving the consumer are
greater than in alternative economic systems. A system of slavery, in
which the individual is forced to labour for others, or a planned economy,
where government organises production, destroy the incentives to
produce. Taxes perform that function too. Taxes are like prices; they are
the price - or penalty - paid for engaging in economic activity. The more
government taxes investment and work, the lower the rewards for work
and investment will be. And if the rewards for work and investment fall,
there will be less work and investment as a result. Taxes are an economic
barrier that limits the number of people taking part in the activity that is
taxed. Taxes on work and investment will also exclude some people from
working or investment altogether. Regulation has the same effect. By
raising the costs of production, prices are artificially raised, increasing
living costs and placing goods out of the reach of the poor.
Free enterprise lifts people out of poverty
Far from enriching a wealthy few, the dynamism of the free enterprise
system can be seen most vividly in the way it eliminates poverty more
rapidly than other economic system. Whilst economic freedom does
inevitably lead to a degree of inequality in people’s incomes and wealth,
attempts to go further and to redistribute income and wealth from the
wealthy to the less well off shrinks the economy, destroying economic
opportunity for those who need it the most. Attempts to use government
to determine people’s incomes and wealth creates an arbitrary society
in which access to political power determines people’s income and
wealth. This sort of inequality is more harmful to the poor than inequalities
of wealth and income under free enterprise, because free enterprise
rewards people with high incomes only as long as they serve the customer
better than others. It allows people to serve their own interests
only insofar as they use their property and labour to serve the interests
- 31 -
of others. Free enterprise maximises the opportunities of the poor to get
out of poverty and makes society a cheap place to live in.
Free enterprise creates jobs
Critics of free enterprise often point to business cycles in the West in
which periods of economic expansion are interrupted by recessions
which cause unemployment to rise. The fluctuations of the business
cycle played a key part in communist propaganda during the Cold War,
but it should be noted that the communist world only avoided such
cycles by maintaining a permanent economic stagnation which left living
standards far lower than those achieved in the West. In fact, economic
recessions and depressions are caused by inflation resulting from
government expanding the supply of money and credit faster than the
growth of the economy. Increasing the supply of money relative to the
supply of goods and services eats away at the value of money, causing
inflation which increases unemployment when people discover that the
currency is losing its value. The solution is not to do away with free
enterprise, but rather to take the supply of money out of the hands of
government. Some unemployment is caused not by inflation, but by
taxes and regulations on work which cause a mismatch between the
supply of labour and consumer demand. In a free enterprise economy
there is always work available because the demands of consumers are
never exhausted.
Free enterprise guards the environment
Just as free enterprise has multiplied the range of goods and services
available and brought them down in price, so it has increased the supply
of nature’s resources and made the world’s energy and resources cheaper
over time. This effect is the key to understanding why air and water
quality is improving in economies like that of the USA whilst communism
left societies scarred by pollution and despoliation. It is also an
important reason why those people who enjoy the most economic freedom
have a longer life-expectancy at birth. Wealthier is healthier. The
free enterprise system has created the wealth which has made possible
the discovery of new sources of energy and more efficient uses of natural
- 32 -
resources. The private ownership of natural resources has also protected
and enhanced the environment because private owners have an interest
in the long-term preservation of resources and are therefore better stewards
than the state. Free enterprise has maximised the freedom of the
ultimate resource - mankind - to solve the problems created by new
technologies, and it has also enabled billions more people with their
ingenuity and creativity to live and prosper in a world which once could
only support a fraction of their number.
Without free enterprise, there can be no democracy
Finally, free enterprise is a necessary, although not a sufficient, condition
for democracy and the civil liberties which we associate with political
freedom. This is because you cannot control an economy without controlling
people. Once economic decisions are taken out of the hands of
the millions of individuals who work, invest, save and spend and are
instead made by a central authority, it becomes necessary to coerce individuals
to fit in with the state’s plan. The power that this places in the
grasp of government makes it possible to punish those who do not do
what those in authority require. The fact that power is concentrated in
the state means that opposition to the government’s plans is extremely
difficult and dangerous. In a free enterprise society where the means of
production are privately owned, there are always alternative employers
and privately funded trade unions, political parties, pressure groups,
newspapers, radio and television stations and places of assembly and worship.
As Leon Trotsky explained: “When the state is the sole employer,
opposition means death by slow starvation.”
- 33 -
Reading
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, London, University of
Chicago Press, 1962, chapters 1, 2.
Milton & Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, London, Secker & Warburg,
1980, chapters 1, 2.
Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, London, University of Chicago
Press, 1976 (1944).
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, New Rochelle NY, Arlington
House, 1979.
Peter Saunders, Capitalism: A Social Audit, Buckingham, Open
University Press, 1995.
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, Liberty Press, 1981
(1776).
Questions for thought
1. Why is the free market superior to state socialism?
2. How can you make free markets more acceptable?
3. How can you extend markets in your country?
-